Talk:Voltaire/Archive 1

various
I perceive that this article is quite full of what are at least stylistic eccentricities, perhaps due to OCR problems, but I won't presume to change them, not knowing what the original article has to say. Could someone undertake this who has a closer familiarity with the subject? - user:Montrealais —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 21 August 2002 (UTC).
 * This is an insufficiently reformed cut-and-paste from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. There is a checklist on how to improve  such material in 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.  This article could benefit from a second paragraph summarizing Voltaire, severe copy-editing, and some visual relief through shorter paragraphs and crossheads where the subject changes. Ortolan88


 * It certainly needs a lot of cutting. I'm sure it's charming and titillating for in-the-know members of the Voltaire Fan Club, but it's chock full of gossip and trivia at the moment.

I also noticed copy/paste from http://www.malaspina.org/home.asp?topic=./search/details&lastpage=./search/results&ID=127

I noticed this on the part titled Cirey...

The original site is badly written so it's hard to find what's correct or not, and what it is trying to say...

Too much blah, blah, blah. When you are looking to research someone you don't want to know every little, miniscule detail in his life that had no effect whatsoever on his contributions to the development of the enlightenment.The person who wrote it obviously does not understand at all the great things that Voltaire did, however the person does know that he went to the Duke of Sully's house.WoW!

User "4.65.94.2" thought it would be funny to change Voltaire's place of birth from Paris to San Francisco. I have edited it back. (But see this link: http://www.sacklunch.net/biography/V/Voltaire.html which says that he was actually born on the 20th of February 1694, at Chatenay - can somebody confirm or deny that?)

Mike Rosoft


 * San Francisco? I'm changing it back. :> Trekphiler 03:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I did what I could to make this article shorter, but it's still waaaay too long and, frankly, doesn't tell much about Voltaire's _importance_. I hope anyone's interested in improving it.

(Maybe it would be better to start it over, but that's a task for better writers than me).

Goliard 15:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is also a current singer who goes by Voltaire. It would be nice if someone who knows more about him than I do would create a Voltaire (singer) article and add a disambiguation header to this article. --LostLeviathan 01:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Canards about Voltaire's death
We have two current texts:
 * "Stories about his death in a state of terror and despair are false."
 * " Stories about his death in a state of terror and despair are shown as false by some, but there is enough evidence that they are true." (Anonymous User:192.85.47.1)

Is the new, second version a Catholicism? --Wetman 01:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, a new edit solemnly told us that Voltaire was struck down by lightning! Godless Voltaire, struck down by a bolt from the Hand of God! Divine Justice! etc... People are taught this tripe. And they believe it! Absolutely unimaginable! --Wetman 22:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wetman, the lightning post might just have been a reaction to how vividly you responded to that first silly edit... --Scotto 00:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

An actual cause of Voltaire's death would be necessary for the current article page. Anyone wishing to add it is more than welcome to do so.

"largely discredited" would be a good compromise between the viewpoints, but we would need to source it. To say that it is "outright false" is a bold statment, and cannot be made without multiple, very credible sources. --71.34.12.223 09:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What gawdawful writing!
This is the worst-written article I've seen so far in this encyclopedia, full of pointless irrelevancies and lacking in coherence and readability. The author can't seem to tell trivia from substance, never mind being able to write a simple declarative sentence free of polysyllabic references to arcane details that not only contribute nothing to understanding the subject but actually detract from it.

--

I agree, this is the worst article I have read on wikipedia. I searched for Voltaire in the hope of learning something about the man. Instead not only was I confused by the mishmash of detail but the writing was confusing to try and comprehend as well.

If you think it's that bad, then fix it!! 00:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The article is a list of events that are barely related to each other and convey next to nothing of the subject's importance. There are no synopses of even his most important plays, no attempt to elaborate on the political temper of the times, few examples of Voltaire's razor wit for which he was so famous, almost nothing on *why* he was such an enemy of the church, and so on.

Very bad, in fact. Please find someone to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, and lacking that, better no article at all than this one!


 * Are you volunteering to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, or are you just idly complaining? Remember, anybody &mdash; including you &mdash; can edit this article. &mdash; jredmond 18:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know the specific reason that Voltaire assumed his pseudonym, or was it just becuase of his controversial subject material? 00:09, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Full of personal opinions
I must agree that the article is not only full of irrelevancies but it also contains an unbelievable amount of very personal opinions such as:

"That he never [...] gave utterance to one great thought is strictly true"

or

"his great fault was an inveterate superficiality"

and

"Not the most elaborate work of Voltaire is of much value"

This is strikingly against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. How this has gone unnoticed, I do not understand. It has become obvious by now that this poorly written article cannot remain like this. It is my opinion that the text, as it is, is hopeless. This clearly calls for a complete rewrite.


 * I just removed one of the more flagrant examples of opinion, but there are more. It's not a matter of a complete rewrite, just of people being prepared to tackle the article over time and improve it. Metamagician3000 02:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

50 Cups of Coffee?
I've read many times on the internet that Voltaire reportedly drank about 50 cups of coffee a day. I've also read something similar in a published work, The First American by H.W. Brands (a biography of Benjamin Franklin). However, I've never seen a source for this.

Can anyone provide a source for Voltaire's coffee drinking?
 * His correspondence with Catherine the Great (another coffeeholic) or a good biography. The figure "50" is an exaggeration, but an 18th-century chocolate cup&mdash; used for coffee&mdash; is what you'd call demitasse. --Wetman 19:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy of sexuality
Okay, I'm hoping this isn't going to be controversial, but just in case it is, I'm making a space for discussion on the talk page ahead of time. I added Category: Philosophy of sexuality to this page. Reason being, Voltaire did talk a lot about sexuality, and there are several noteworthy contributions in the Philosophical Dictionary. So, if anyone has issues, before removing the category, let's talk here! -Seth Mahoney 22:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jerome spent a great deal more time thinking about human sexuality than Voltaire, and wrote about virginity and fornication at much greater length. Needless to say, Saint Jerome is not to be found in the category Philosophy of sexuality. Seth Mahoney will have some justifications for this apparent omission, which should be entertained. First, however, I invite Seth Mahoney to add Jerome to the category Philosophy of sexuality, on the basis of his praise of virginity for a start, and to defend the addition at Talk:Jerome. --Wetman 00:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I neither have nor need any justifications for this omission. He hasn't been included because nobody's added him yet (it is a pretty new category), not because there is some systematic and intentional omission of a particular type of philosophy of sexuality (if this is what you're getting at).  I was going to add Kant and Augustine also, whose views on sexuality differed immensely from those philosophers already in Category:Philosophy of sexuality, but wanted to test the waters with Voltaire first.  By all means, if you can think of someone who should be added, add them!  -Seth Mahoney 21:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

IQ
This article states that his IQ is believed to be above 190. By whom? Stuff like that is very hard to estimate correctly.--Prosfilaes 21:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am removing that. If someone can provide a source for the unverifiable comment, we can put it back. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Misspellings
I corrected it, so no harm done, but I thought i'd bring it up anyway- the word civilization was misspelled on the last line of the 'Exile to England' section. It may not be a big deal, but if your going to edit someone elses writing, be sure you have the mechanics of it yourself.


 * Actually, that's the correct spelling &mdash; in the UK. Per our Manual of Style, in this situation, it's appropriate to use UK spellings because the original article was written with UK spellings.  I've reverted it back.  Thanks for your efforts, though. - jredmond 18:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Philosopher is not the correct term for Voltaire or any other Enlightenment Writer of France. An Enlightenment Writer of France would be referred to as a "Philosophe" and not a Philosopher.

Create history summary and move the current history to a seperate article
Currently, this article is far too long to be useful to readers, as has been pointed out. Much of this length comes from an extensive history of Voltaire's life, tracking him as he moves from city to city in Europe. This is interesting content, but would probably do better as its own article; I saw a similar technique used in an article on the City of Coventry. I would do this myself, but am very new to Wikipedia and am unsure how to do so. Also, I agree that this has far too much bias; I tried to edit one section but am not sure if my changes were helpful.
 * Your changes looked great (to me, at least!). Saikiri 07:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you did a good job condensing the philosophy section. Thanks! On the other hand, I'm unsure of your suggestion to move the whole history section to another article. What would it be called, "History of Voltaire"? :) I think a better idea would be to pare it down to essentials (basically as you did with philosophy) and then restructure the article so that the good stuff came before the drier biographical details. Kiaparowits 16:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the most important thing is to create a condensed history and replace the bear we have now. I was just trying to think of a way to save the information for those who are interested, but I don't know how many folks are. I created a History of Voltaire page, but I don't really understand the formatting tools yet, so it's a total mess.

Patronymic
The article says After his release from the Bastille in April 1718, he was known as Arouet de Voltaire, or simply Voltaire, though legally he never abandoned his patronymic but I can not see that his name, nor the name he was born under or his pen name, contains any patronymic at all. Possibly it refers to "his fathers name", i.e. the family name Arouet? / Habj 03:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I replaced the misused word. InvisibleSun 16:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor works
I think it should be added a section where to list minor Voltaire's works like Doctor Akakia

Go someplace else
For someone looking to research Voltaire, don't bother looking here.

This article is full of mistakes, misinformation, and is generally awful.


 * Why don't you make changes, rather than just complain? -Seth Mahoney 21:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting the pop myth "defend to death". I added Hall didn't actually attribute. See Shenkman. Trekphiler 03:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. This has got to be the most misquoted quote in all history. -- Saikiri~ 04:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted it, because devoting an entire section of the article to "shit misattributed to Voltaire" is stupid and reeks of axe-grinding. And for the love of god will someone clean up this stinking pile of narrative dogshit trying to pass for a formal encyclopedia entry? 68.88.76.100 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a very short paragraph clearing up the issue of the quote, because that one quote is in some cases the only thing people know, or think they know, about Voltaire. Contrary to what 76.100 claims, correcting widespread misinformation is a perfect legitimate (and valuable) aim for Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * for the love of gawd, quitcher bitchin, wikipedia is not a formal encyclopedia, even though many contributors would like to pretend it is, and thats what makes it interesting, imho

new voltaire page
I created a new Volatire page based on an essay I wrote. Please check it out and improve it...maybe sometime when it gets good it can replace the old one... Thanks! User:Setjw/Francois-Marie_Arouet

btw, thanks Prosfilaes...i'm new to wiki, so i didn't know the rule...--Setjw 01:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved it to User:Setjw/Francois-Marie Arouet, since it's not appropriate to have multiple articles on the exact same subject. If it is to be made as a replacement, it should be worked in user space until it's suitable.--Prosfilaes 00:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

People generally take a dim view of a complete replacement of an existing article if it's a longstanding fairly complete and mature article with years of contributions by other editors. In general, contributions should be made by modifying the existing article. -- Curps 08:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at all the requests for rewrites on this talk page, though. I think the Francois-Marie Arouet article is vastly better than the current state of the Voltaire article. We should replace everything between the intro paragraphs and the "works" section with it, then make Francois-Marie Arouet a redirect to this page. -- Megamix? 21:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is that the Arouet article does not have nearly as much information as the Voltaire. I think that the Arouet should first be edited before such a big change and deletion is made to an existing article. Curps does have a point...even with all these comments, people have worked on this. So whatever happens, it can't take place overnight or without a general consensus. But thanks for your support, Megamix =).--Setjw 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Article with less (but legible) information > big messy lump of text that nobody can make sense of. This guy is supposedly famous, so he deserves a better article. In the spirit of being bold, I wikified your article and replaced the current Voltaire page with it. -- Megamix? 13:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it will work? I never intended to replace the original so soon...--Setjw 01:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

With reference to the "écrasez l'infâme" quote, to be somewhat pedantic, the translation should read "crush the infamous one". It is probably a good idea to check with another french speaker though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: This article is subject to trolling and vandalization. please, when you write the article save to your personal computers.

Cleanup
I did a round of cleanup. Feel free to revert, throw bricks, question my sanity, etc etc.


 * The original article used his real name (François-Marie Arouet) until the exile to England, where it switches to Voltaire. I decided it should be consistent and changed all Arouet to Voltaire.


 * I rewrote the Correspondence, Prose & romances, Miscellanous and Poetry sections under "works". Someone should check that I didn't break anything and NPOV it.


 * About the misattribution thing, I think the information should stay (at least as an explanation to puzzled readers wondering why the quote isn't listed) but I removed the section header and rewrote the note so that it reads less like it's trying to make a point. Is this better?


 * Lots of minor fixes.


 * I removed the inappropriate tone tag at the top - I think it's mostly ok now.

Oh, and I forgot this yesterday: thanks to User:Setjw for the new bio! Megamix? 06:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work! --Setjw 01:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Poetry section: "Saint Lambart,its all for thee,the flowers grows; Roses thrones are all for me;for thee the rose." [sic] This recently inserted line could be included in the article but punctuation, formatting and spelling need work. 14 google hits for Saint Lambart, 1,200,000 for Saint Lambert; flowers grow or flower grows? Roses, Rose's or Roses'? thrones or thorns? Athænara  ✉  00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did Voltaire mean Saint Lambert (martyr)? Athaenara  ✉  04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Château de Cirey/Paris/St. Lambert section. Athaenara  ✉  09:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Investigator of the Gospels?
This section is inconsistent with itself and biased.


 * First I suggest changing the section header to "Christian Gospels", as simply "Gospels" is ambiguous.


 * Second, his views were not consistent? Says who? To believe the gospels were fabrications and that they were faithfully transcribed, one copy to the next, is not an inconsistent viewpoint. Not if the gospels were a fabrication from the start.


 * Defense of Christian apologetics. This is redundant, as apologetics are a defense. And it wasn't convincing at the time? Says who? Is this also to say that they are convincing today?

I would change this section myself if it wasn't in need of a complete rewrite. It may be best just to drop it altogether.


 * In Britain, you'd never need to specify "Christian Gospels" - it would be like saying "the Islamic Koran". Strong hostility to existing Chrstianity is also part of what the man believed, whether or not you agree with it.  (Whether or not he believed that Jesus had had a different message, I do not know, though some Deists did believe this.  --GwydionM 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

An Investigator of the Gospels
Does anyone have a reference to the claim that Voltaire did not believe Jesus existed? I've run across a reference (F. M. Voltaire, "De Jesus," from Dieu et les hommes, in Oeuvres complétes de Voltaire (Paris: Société Littéaire-Typographique, 1785) 33:273) that I'm trying to track down that suggests the opposite. Thanks!--CTSWyneken 11:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Voltaire's view is summarised as follows: Moses was a shrewd politician; the prophets were enthusiasts like the dervishes, or else epileptics; Jesus was a visionary like the founder of the Quakers, and his religion received life only through its union with Platonism. Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

200 rats
The remark 'Voltaire is quoted as saying that he "would rather obey one lion, than 200 rats of (his own) species"'is quite a good remark. It sounds consistent with his beliefs, but has anyone got the source?

It is not in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. It's the sort of thing you'd get challenged on if you used it.

--GwydionM 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See below under the heading "Quotations" InvisibleSun 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Possible
The following sentence:
 * "He also met several influential people, including writers such as Shakespeare, which he saw as an example French writers should look to."

is, in the first place, ungrammatical. In the second place, it is rendered dubious by the irrevocable fact that Shakespeare died 78 years before Voltaire was born. Kylegann 01:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * this site cites: He made acquaintance with, and at least tried to appreciate, Shakespeare.
 * That doesn't fix the fact that it's impossible that he did so. --Prosfilaes 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * still unclear, though...could someone else please look into this? thanks...
 * Sorry...I meant my writing...I didn't see that Prosfilaes had already commented...


 * This sounds better:


 * Voltaire may well have become acquainted with Shakespeare's works. He did not *meet* Shakespeare. Kylegann 03:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare was more than acquainted with Shakespeare. Check out his Letter's Concerning the English Nation.

In the first paragraph of "Exile to England", reference is made to video tapes being "circled around". Videotapes in the early 1700's? You've got to be kidding ... As for him setting out "on a career in child pornography" (Early years, paragraph 2) ... you're still kidding us, right? --Tomp963 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for a section on how awesome his name is
I'm not writing it. - thedcm
 * I'm pretty sure writing anything about how awesome anything is on Wikipedia will violate WP:NPOV Vegasrebel29 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * His name is awesome - thedcm

Voltaire racist?
It's hard to believe a champion of the masses would be a racist. Verification is definetly needed. The version in question can be found here.[]

"Champion of the Masses", hahaha...Voltaire was, if anything, an upper-class bourgeois liberal, but hardly a champion of the masses.

Vegasrebel29 04:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Both quotes are well cited. Frankly, only someone unfamiliar with history would be surprised that Voltaire was a racist in the modern sense. I think adding a whole section about is unnecessary.--Prosfilaes 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you think it's unnecessary? Obviously many people (like Vegasrebel29) are unaware of that. Raphael1 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And adding a whole section made it seem like it was important to comment on. If he was racist, it was in the manner of his time. If we leave someone with the impression that he was exceptionally racist, we done more of a disservice then if we just leave the subject alone.--Prosfilaes 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whence do you know, that being a racist was in the manner of his time? How comes, that quoting Voltaire would give the wrong(?) impression, he was exceptionally racist? Raphael1 16:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When you make a section of the article equal in prominance to his works or biography, it gives the wrong impression. I know that racism was in the manner of his time because there was a thriving slave trade going on, for one thing.--Prosfilaes 19:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where do you want me to add it to? Biography, Works, Legacy, Quotations or The pen name "Voltaire"? Raphael1 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want you to add it anywhere. Extensive quotes are something we should use with care to avoid bulking up the article, and what we have now is plenty.--Prosfilaes 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you want me to add it? Many people don't know about Voltaires racism. Shouldn't they know after reading that article? How about adding just a sentence like "As in the manner of his time Voltaire was racist and anti-semitic." Raphael1 11:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I did add a note to the Legacy when I removed your section.--Prosfilaes 21:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * hello there children! (look at the monitor and answer 'hi chef') wtf is going here!?!?!?!! it's kinda "YEAH IT'S TRUE BUT IT'S BETTER DON'T TALK ABOUT IT"! this is disgusting, it's the kind of thing even Voltaire would hate and wouldn't die trying to asure your right of saying it. look:

"VOLTAIRE (Francois Marie Arouet) 18th century French philosopher, writer.

"Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human race..."

"The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous - cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity." (Essai sur le Moeurs)

"You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny." (From a letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his 'anti-Semitism.' Examen des Quelques Objections... dans L'Essai sur le Moeurs.)

"You will only find in the Jews an ignorant and barbarous people, who for a long time have joined the most sordid avarice to the most detestable superstition and to the most invincible hatred of all peoples which tolerate and enrich them." ("Juif," Dictionnaire Philosophique)

"I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These marranos go wherever there is money to be made... But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth." (Letter to Jean-Baptiste Nicolas de Lisle de Sales, December 15, 1773. Correspondance. 86:166)

"They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race." (Lettres de Memmius a Ciceron, 1771)"

"Frankly, only someone unfamiliar with history (i.e. stupid) would be surprised that Voltaire was a racist in the modern sense." is there any other sense? get outta here! you're not the kind of person that can control information. manner of his time my blackass! hipocrisy at wikipedia isn't cool.

may be from a very very biased font (the book 'what world famous men said about the jews'), but that doesn't make it a lie. may be the font would just be called BIASED because it's telling the truth it's better don't talk about. yes, wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia at all (saddly i used to think it was until it bacame pretty obvious it is not not not!) and I feel sorry for those who try to "learn" here. but hey, that's the kind of truth it's better don't talk about, let'em guess! frankly they just won't find it out if they're unfamiliar with history ;)


 * Pointing out that Voltaire wasn't a wall to wall egalitarian is about as useful as pointing out that he wore a wig. Too many biographies on Wikipedia waste time mentioning that X held opinions any reasonable modern person would find obnoxious, in spite of the fact that the only remarkable thing would be if X hadn't held such opinions, given the age they lived in. Voltaire's racism, to speak in anachronistic terms, is hardly as significant as his views on Christianity or his Deism. There are plenty of places in the legacy section where it would be appropriate to add a sentence to the effect "though he held many opinions that most people today would regard as racist".


 * I think people inclined to simplistic hero worship often need to be made aware that there were many things about their heroes that were deeply unattractive by modern standards (Voltaire was also deeply undemocratic, as well as being a dreadful sycophant), but an article on Wikipedia with aspirations to encyclopaedic status is not the place to engage in such re-education. Jamrifis 12:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Voltaire as an egalitarian is about the funniest thing I've heard in a long time; of course he was not (and harldy any of the Enlightenment philosophes were). Does that diminish his statue as a thinker? Of course not; non-conformity with 21st-century sensibilities hardly matters in any assessment of an 18th-century thinker. As for the discussion of Voltaire's racism/anti-semitism we obviously must apply similar principles apply. Throwing in a few decontextualised quotes about Voltaire's view on Jews and black people to demonstrate that he was a raving racist is simply meaningless. If these issues are to be included in the entry at all (which I doubt they warrant), then surely they need contextualisation. For instance, Voltaire's discussion on Jews surely must be understood in the context of his general account of revealed religion, and must be set in the context of 18th-century censorship (which often led writers to attack the Jews whilst actually aiming at their Christian off-spring). Similarly, Voltaire's views on non-white people cannot be understood outside the context of his general framework of savagery, barbarism, civilisation and historical development. If people started to read Voltaire in such contexts, then they would start to understand that the question of whether Voltaire was a "racist, anti-semitist, egalitarian, etc."? is pretty much meaningless and doesn't increase our understanding of him at all. However, given the above discussion, I sort of doubt whether wikipedia readers/editors understand enough history to appreciate this. In any case I give it a go, by deleting the presently pointless section on Voltaire's views on race ..... (81.129.120.25 12:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Why has the section on race/anti-semitism been included again after my rather reasonalbe suggestion above? It is just embarassing, even the few caveats. What is the statment that slavery was accepted during Voltaire's time supposed to mean? Accepted where and by whom? By the philosophes (definitely not)? By the people reading the Histoire des deux Indes - one of the most widely read books during the second part of the 18th-century (definitely not)? By Voltaire himself who liberated the peasants living in serfdom on his Ferney estate (well, I wouldn't have thought so)? Do we know what the relations between slavery and what we today call "racism" was in the 18th-century? And what is the point of a statement such as [despite his apparent approval of slavery (factually false)] Voltaire was quite enlightened in regards to civil liberties? That clearly is (a) about as generic as being meaningless; and (b) judging history by contemporary standards running wild. It is really quite easy: the section on race/anti-semitism proves to anyone who has a bit of understanding of 18th-century intellectual history, that Wikipedia is not to be taken seriously. I've made a last attempt and deleted it again.

Voltaire in the rubric "Antisemitism" or "Antisemitic People"
Voltaire in the history has been represented as the greatest humanist and there we see him in his writings that blacks are "half-monkeys" and that jews are "infamous and barbarous people". I think he deserve completely his place in those rubrics. And you ?

Quotations
The quotations section in this article has become a junkpile. The majority of these quotations are unsourced. We're supposed to have evidence for whatever we add to Wikipedia; and yet we seem to take the legitimacy of these quotations for granted. I've been working for a while on the Voltaire page in Wikiquote, adding quotations which I have sourced and finding sources whenever I can for the ones that are "attributed." The Voltaire quotations here in Wikipedia are a mixed bag: some are genuine and have been sourced correctly; others are genuine but have been ascribed to the wrong sources; others, even allowing for differences in translation, have been misquoted; others are ones for which I've been unable to find sources and have no reason to think are genuine (or, at any rate, by Voltaire). I could go through them one by one, correcting some and deleting others, but before doing so I need to ask the following: 1) Could those who have added the unsourced quotes provide us with the sources?  Voltaire was a prolific author—  his letters alone fill up dozens of volumes— so it's not like I can say for certain "He never said this" about any particular quote.  But isn't it up to those who have provided the quotations to give us proof for them?  And if they can't or won't, why should we keep them?  If we were to ask people where they got these quotes, I'm pretty sure what they would answer: "Oh, they're real: I've seen them on all these quotation lists." Unfortunately, this proves nothing.  Most of those humungous quotation lists have no sources, no proof.  They're full of quotes which turn out to have been said by other people.  Some of those lists are so shoddily put together that the same quotations are repeated several times. One of the things we've been trying to do in Wikiquote is to create a standard of proof. Which leads to my second question: 2) Why have a quotations section in the Wikipedia article when there's already one in Wikiquote?  Is there any point to all this duplication?  The quotations section of this article has a Wikiquote link.  If people want to find quotations (most of them sourced, in the case of Voltaire), they can follow the link to a page which specializes in quotes.  My proposal is for people to give proof for what they've added.  After a month has passed, any unsourced quotations should go.  InvisibleSun 01:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with InvisibleSun...Check out his quotes page; it's much better developed than the straight list of quotes we have here, since he has added the original French as well as all the original sources. Setjw 14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Exile To England
Doing a quick bit of independent research, it looks like the Exile To England section could be fleshed out a fair bit.

I've read some things that make it sound like he was exiled to England on more than one occasion, although certainly the most significant of such was from 1726-1729. An introduction to one edition of his "Letters on England" even seems to suggest that he applied for a passport to England upon release from yet another detainment in the Bastille: http://www.history1700s.com/page1261.shtml

Would this imply that he was once again exiled from Paris rather than the whole of France, and certainly not specifically to England as is implied in his Wikipedia article? fonetikli 02:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dodgy links for Biography?
Looks like someone has hijacked the Biography section and put in some links to undesirable websites... Can anyone change the section back to what it held before?

Voltaire a vegetarian?
Are you really sure he is a vegetarian? It says nothing in the article that he was a vegetarian - not even the word vegetable is in there! There should be a source for this, unless this was a matter of subtle humor or something like that. ..

--69.170.0.207 15:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that he was vegetarian, but it is a correct assumption if you are familiar with his works. Just as one would fairly assume that someone who speaks out against rape is not a rapist.
 * --A Sunshade Lust 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fairly assume that?!? Hypocracy is ripe in the human species; Thomas Jefferson spoke out against slavery and kept slaves, and preachers have frequently been caught in affairs.--Prosfilaes 01:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, but it seems you have not read Voltaire's "Traité sur la Tolérance", as he is quite explicit. It's not as if it was a far stretch, such as calling a figure "vegetarian" on the sole basis that the figure opposed causing suffering. Voltaire clearly opposed the eating of flesh, and with a force that puts any serious thought that he ate it to shame.
 * --A Sunshade Lust 04:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless there is strong evidence of Voltaire being vegetarian, or an external and reliable source stating this (how many biographies exists of him? Lots... any of those claims he was vegetarioan), then this article rightly never mention any of this conjectures, because it would be original research and out of the scope of wikipedia. Loudenvier 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read the link I provided? If you do not read French, and can not find it online (I tried, but to no avail) I am sure you could procure the "Essay on Tolerance" at a library. At first I translated it but few one/two-sentence citations make his point, and I have no intention of bloating the talk page. --A Sunshade Lust 23:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not saw the link, sorry. I can read a litle french (not too much, but it would do). So it´s easy, just cite the article if you are sure it is reliable enough. Sources should be in English whenever possible, but that´s not a demand. Also, if there are other sources that deny he was a vegetarian you should also cite them. Expressing all points of view is the way to go whenever something is controversial. Regards Loudenvier 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But keep in mind that the Traité was Voltaire expression, but it does not assure us he behaved like he said. History gave us people who were outspoken against racism but were racist themselves. Regards. Loudenvier 23:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are two which I have translated, but, especially for the first citation, without the context it does not say as much.


 * As for him being an hypocrite to his ideals. In his Philosophical Dictionary entry on "Meat, Forbidden Meat, Dangerous Meat" (note that my translation is not the same as the link, his own word is "viande", being "meat", and he notes that "viande" in French now only means "meat", when it actually means "foods" if we look at it's roots. The English translation used "viands", meaning "food" in English which does not make sense in the text). As he spoke of the Pythagoreans, which he acknowledge as vegetarian and spoke of them in a positive light, but noted "though it is very rare to practise what is preached". I find it unlikely that, while being careful to note the possibility of hypocrisy, he himself would be one.
 * Sorry for the length.. but here it is. --A Sunshade Lust 00:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * --A Sunshade Lust 01:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Men ate men. Men kills men. We are such barbarians! :-) Why don´t you put all this info you dig on the article? You could say that: Voltaire spoke against eating meat (and then you cite the French along with translations, this would not be original research. Just don´t fall to the temptation to say that he was a vegetarian, let this realization to the reader. Nobody will be able to accuse you of POV or original research. Regards. Loudenvier 02:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm :). I'll give it a try. Thanks. --A Sunshade Lust 02:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Actually, I was the one who wrote this question (it's in my memory, so don't accuse me of lying), and this was just because it seemed somewhat "anachronistic" to me, so I was not sure, but thanks anyway. . . --TL 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted reference to John Ralston Saul...
The following was deleted from the "Legacy" section of the article:


 *  "The contemporary Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul lays the blame for the failures of Western, technocratic society with Voltaire in his book, Voltaire's Bastards: the Dictatorship of Reason in the West." 

Has anyone here actually read this book? In "Voltaire's Bastards" Mr. Saul was not blaming Voltaire for anything. Rather he was drawing attention to how various individuals and groups have abused the concepts of "reason" and "rationality" to justify harmful behavior within Western society. Since Voltaire was a strong proponent of reason in general, his name was convenient for the sake of a rawkus title.

Ciao. --TelemachusSneezed 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire's house and the Bible Society
The following text "Twenty years after his death the Geneva Bible Society bought his former home and used it for printing Bibles....thus Voltaire's home became a major distribution hub for the very scriptures he assigned to extinction." is not true. Various forms of this story have been widespread among Christian apologetics for many years and it appeared in the first edition of "A General Introduction of the Bible" by Geisler and Nix, but was removed in the revised edition. The UK Bible Society have documentation of an investigation which shows that no house owned by Voltaire has ever been used by a Bible Society. The story appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a report given by the American Bible Society in 1849. There is a well documented article about it here:The Open Society, Autumn 2004, NZ Perhaps someone more au fait with Wiki can correct it.

--David Saunders 81.157.164.56 11:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The analysis in the article cited by David Saunders is convincing. It appears most likely that the apocryphal story arose as a result of a casual misunderstanding of the 1849 annual report of the American Bible Society. I am therefore going to delete it, however delightful a story it may be to some. Elroch 12:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Citecheck template removed
The citecheck template is intended to flag articles that may contain inappropriate citations. I see no discussion on the talk page about misuse of citations here. Please see Cleanup resources if some other template is needed and discuss the matter on the talk page. Durova 02:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotations II
It seems to me that the article contains way too many quotes. I saw that there has already been some discussion about this; maybe we should pick out a few of the most important quotes and use wikiquote for the others...

40 cups of chocolate/coffee moved to Trivia
I have moved the claim stating that Voltaire drank "40 cups of chocolate/coffee daily" to the Trivia section, as it was originally in the "Works - Miscellaneous" category, and it does not fall under that category. SkePtiKaL 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Voltaire
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  16:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Statue
Why is there a picture of a statue of him while i can't read anything about it? Why was it made? Who payed for it? Jaapvstr 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire's anti-semitism is at best speculative, and has nothing to do on Wikipedia
Voltaire insulted everyone, french, english, german, christian, muslim, jew, african, other philosophers... To call him "anti semit" is to be bullshitting. Jews can be bastards as much as anyone else, and so Voltaire will attack jews as much as anyone else. This is not anti-semitism. It may be major assholery, but that is what Voltair is and that is what he did. But to pick and choose your own reality is BS. Allegations of anti-semitism is harsh and should not be issued like this on a seemingly serious source of information, which this article can not in any way be called.

Who the fuck is making Wikipedia into a forum for people calling other people anti-semites? It's stupid, stop it.

Wallis & Futuna 15:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia reflects what people have written about the subject. Anti-semitism is a hot button topic, so people have written about it, so it should be in Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should find the article about George Bush Jr and insert a few rows about him being a stupid donkey, because that's obviously something people talk a lot about, isn't it? - 83.227.160.163 17:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact the quotations cited in Voltaire's views on race add up to:
 * Voltaire disliked the activities depicted in Joshua and 1st Samuel; he was not the first or the last to do so.
 * Voltaire observed, correctly, that the ancient Jews had rebelled against several empires, and added this to the frequent depiction, from Judges to the later prophets of the Jews as rebellious against their God, to make a stick to beat the Christians. Septentrionalis 23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What we have needs reworded. I like Septentrionalis' comment. We need to avoid grafting our modern-day sensibilities onto the past. --Guinnog 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At the very least, some instructive and sourced examples should be added. Something along the lines of "Voltaire said that Jews have stinky feet ". There are even quotes on the wikiquote page, if someone wants to mine them. Most of the work's already done. grendel|khan 14:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Voltaire insulted everyone, french, english, german, christian, muslim," but never said they were ennemy of the gender human as he said about the jews. Roger_Smith

Dates?
There are *very* few dates corresponding to events outlined... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxic0butterfly (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Château de Cirey/Paris/St. Lambert
My first post on the Lambert question was in the Cleanup section, way up there on this talk page. Since then, having been drawn into it further, I found enough material that it's no longer feasible to continue to address it in a year-old section. Hence, this one.

I found only one instance (none for "Saint") of "St. Lambert, it is all for thee" online, in a blog entry by the American historian Dr. Ralph E. Luker, editor of The Vernon Johns Papers and founder of the history group blog Cliopatria at the George Mason University History News Network. As found here and here, Dr. Luker cites a Vernon Johns newspaper column (originally published in the West Virginia Digest, 23 March 1940), here excerpted with Dr. Luker's explanatory footnotes:


 * St. Lambert, it is all for thee
 * The flower grows;
 * The rose's thorns are all for me;
 * For thee, the rose! **

I have excerpted this at such length (linking only the title and names not previously linked in Voltaire) for its insight into the human side of Voltaire (presently somewhat developed, particularly in the Château de Cirey section to which this excerpt most directly pertains) in the hope that the additional material will be useful for the continued improvement of the article. Athaenara ✉  08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Views on race and Jews
Greetings,

It seems that the relevant quotations have been removed from Wikisource, after having been deleted from Wikipedia. Some of them are available in an old revision of the article.

Grumpy Troll (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in the entry
Please someone erase the comment

"Im a huge jackass. No one really liked me.

I really need someone to stick it in my ass."

Thank you. 207.134.80.122 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Investment
im intrested aboug Voltaires investments in the slave trade operating from Nantes. Could someone give some more information/sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.214.200 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism statements removed
I have removed the claims of antisemitism because they were not cited. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to say that general criticism of all Abrahamic religions is antisemitism, because this clearly doesn't match how the term is generally used and it amounts to saying that all outspoken atheists are antisemitic. Also, condemning specific atrocities listed in the Old Testament (which most modern religious scholars now don't believe ever even took place) is not antisemitic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone re-added the Antisemitism claims which, I agree, are problematic. I don't think Voltaire can be labelled "Antisemitic" - at the most, he may be described a Judeophobe, or simply Anti-Jewish. Voltaire objected to Judaism as a religion and a culture, however, his correspondence with De-Pinto as well as his disdain towards the Spanish Inquisition and any form of religious intolerance or persecution, clearly show that labelling Voltaire an Antisemite is a simplistic and reductive reading of his philosophy. Irisid 12:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I sort of disagree, but it shouldn't be made into a big thing. Still even thogh he mocks most every religion he is basically tolerant of them when compared to Judaism/Jews. By his lifetime there were also enough deists/freethinkers more tolerant of Jews that his views are a bit notable. (That he was less anti-Semitic than the average Frenchman, or even the average educated Frenchman, of his age is a bit beside the point)--T. Anthony 09:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Defend to the death" quote
Why doesn't this article have something about he didn't actually say that? --AW 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It did, someone misguidedly removed it, I added something again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks --AW 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In my constant effort to include Hinduism, wherever it has been deliberately/actively ignored
I have added what Voltaire thought about Hindu philosophy. I did the same to Schopenhaur. Most of the german philosophers who started German Idealism and which further gave birth to modern western philosophy were impressed and influenced by Hindu philosophy. The western media, because of Christian missionaries had tried hard to not to report anything good about Hinduism till these philosophers started writing about it (and because of that many people actually become interested in all that philosophy as they came to know about it indirectly). Even today, while normal people do not care about facts, christian missionaries and their hard core adherents try their best to not to ascribe anything good to Hinduism. That is why, even on wikipedia, you don't see word Hindu mentioned in the articles on these philosophers, even if in their real life they mention it thousand times that they were influenced or impressed by Hindu philosophy. While religions are irrelevant for intellectuals, we still need to provide facts to future generation so that they can understand the real history of thoughts and can learn and improve upon it. The fact is that what those old, badly mistreated Brahmins of Voltaire did was excellent job and they are never given credit for it. even though they themselves were so humble that they never wrote much about themselves, be it Panini, Patanjali, Pingla, Ved Vyasa, or the people who wrote Upnishads. So while we had Vedanta at least 600 years before birth of Christ, we didn't see great philosophies of modern world till Germans became acquainted with those old thoughts. If anybody has any concern do reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skant (talk • contribs) 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent and questionable attribution
In the section The Château de Cirey, the following quote is positively attributed to Voltaire: Voltaire even claimed that "One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker."

In the section Views on Christianity, doubt is cast upon that attribution: Voltaire is reputed to have proclaimed about the Bible, "In 100 years this book will be forgotten and eliminated...", although there is no direct evidence that he made such a statement.

I think we need to determine whether the statement can or cannot be reliably attributed to him, and correct/eliminate whichever is incorrect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Section 3.1
The first sentence of the second paragraph appears to be missing text. Ikilled007 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Voltaire's biography
A quick look through the early history of the article (started in 2001) shows that at some point in the past there was a (perhaps overly) extensive biography of Voltaire. Somewhere between 2004 and now most of it got lost, and we now only have the "Early Life" section, which is frankly not very helpful, as it does not cover a very big and a very important part of Voltaire's life, including his life at Cirey, at the court of Frederick the Great, &c. Is there any editor out there with enough time on their hands to try and compile at least some kind of summary of Voltaire's "Later life"? I'd do that myself, but I'm rather busy at the moment and will be for another three weeks at least. Anyone? --AVIosad(talk) 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Voltaire denying exictance of Jezus
I would really like to know the source of this information, since there is no clear source in the article I thought I'de ask for it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.117.233 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Voltaire was known for his love of many tenets of Christiany but his hate and anger towards its dogma and organized structure. http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volrelig.html He made clear his reverence for the figure of Christ, but hated the hypocritical actions of the chruch. 74.5.105.31 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Who dared to remove my comments about Upanishads from Philosophy section??
Reply me back. Why the comments related to Upanishads were removed from philosophy section. Else I will have to put them back as a whole without editing the current philosophy section (which isn't that good an idea, so reply will help much more:-)).--skant
 * On second thoughts i will have to add the whole old-philosophy section back, as the word upanishad, which was quite important for voltaire can not be found in the article. Who deliberately deleted those lines? Somebody else was crying that the whole history should be moved back to some other article? Why? so that nobody knows what we talked about??--skant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.7.175.2 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment
This article appears to have gone badly wrong or has regressed perhaps. There is no mention of Arouet's fascinating two-year exile in England, where he was deeply influenced by Newtonian science. Where is the decades-long romance with Emilie Du Châtelet and his involvement with the "research institute" in her chateau at Cirey? (where she established that E=MV^2 - and not E=MV as posited by Newton). 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to edit this article at the moment - but it would be good if someone could add the fact that Voltaire was one of the first western Europeans to credit animals with sentience and to write of animals' rights.

Also, more credit for Voltaire's "Micromegas", one of the earliest western European science fiction works, would be good too.

Lea

203.214.6.34 15:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Voltaire's views on Hinduism
Hello, I noticed that the article had an unexplained "On philosophy of Brahimins, India and Hinduism:" with nothing following it except for a "citation needed" tag.

I did some looking and this is the content that was deleted in this edit:


 * He considered Indian civilization to be the ancestor civilization to western culture (Christians, Jews) and he considered Brahmins or Hindus to be the first philosophers. In his book Dictionnaire philosophique, under the heading "Brahmins" the first sentence reads:
 * "Is it not probable that the Brahmins were the first legislators of the earth, the first philosophers, the first theologians?"


 * He was also fond of mildness, gentleness and sublime nature of Hindu philosophy or Brahaminical thoughts.


 * He was critical of Christian missionaries attempting to malign the Hindu religion and summarized it the following way:


 * "This is only a small part of the ancient cosmogony of the Brahmins. Their rites, their pagodas, prove that among them everything was allegorical; they still represent virtue beneath the emblem of a woman who has ten arms, and who combats ten mortal sins represented by monsters. Our missionaries have not failed to take this image of virtue for that of the devil, and to assure us that the devil is worshipped in India. We have never been among these people but to enrich ourselves and to calumniate them. "Fact"

I don't know whether or not this content is accurate, but I am putting it here so that more knowledgeable people can choose whether or not to restore it to the article. In the meantime, I am deleting the orphaned "On philosophy of Brahimins..." line because it makes the text look untidy. -- Kyok o  16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Black coffee
I read Voltaire was attributed with drinking black coffee because it was the "free thinkers' drink. Something about it might have been illegal at the time, but there is a famous French cafe that gives him credit for being the first or at least coining the black coffee drinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.167.155 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Biography
I've restored some of the "lost" biography referred to above by User:AVIosad. There were big gaps in the article. Not even a mention of Madame du Chatelet! Deb (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Most Famous Quote
"Regardless of how much I may despise your ideas and opinions, I will fight to my death for you to be able to express them"

Voltaire was a true democrat (not in the US partisan sense of the word). There are so many people around the world these days wearing on their sleeves their self-awarded dedication to democracy, but only a handful are true democrats, like Voltaire. How many modern commentators who call themselves champions of democracy would die for the right of the guy on the other side of the aisle to express his opposite views? Surely less than I have fingers attached to my right hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.93.5 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that the above words were never uttered or written by Voltaire. Nihil novi (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is correct. There was an explanation to that effect in the article at one time. But apparently someone must have deleted it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read all of Voltaire's 20,000 letters? 2,000 books and pamphlets? Have you heard every word that came out of Voltaire's mouth? I'm willing to bet my tongue you haven't even read one of Voltaire's works. Although I cannot prove that claim, I'll admit it as an axiom. You cherry pick so as to lessen the influence of Voltaire. It's a classic. Did you know he lived in England for some time? Surely, that must increase his value to your fair and balanced eyes. You can even use that as a starting point to turn Voltaire into yet another sub-Shakespearian author. Undoubtedly many of your wikidictatorial friends will support you. May it indispose Perfidious Albion, Voltaire is to Shakespeare what Bucephalus is to Sancho Panza's mule.77.58.147.83 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Voltaire is no longer credited with the quotation because we know who actually said it: namely, Evelyn Beatrice Hall. See also the Wikiquote page on Hall. - InvisibleSun (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Meaning?
On the Legacy section of this article, it has that he distrusted democracy as a idiocy of the masses. What kind of democracy did he distrust? Was it the electoral kind or just democracy in general?

Communismeffect (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Timeline"
Article contains many mentions of events in Voltaire's life, but almost never mentions the year that they occurred, so that we cannot tell whether "B" happened two months after "A" or two decades after. For example, the section "Later Life" mentions several events in a few sentences: these events actually span thirty years; from the death of Mme Du Châtelet in 1749 to Voltaire's own death in 1778. Could we please add in more specific years throughout the article? Thanks. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

IPA spelling of his full name
Could someone add an IPA spelling of his full name? I think this should be standard on all foreign names. -David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.214.85 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No anti-religion category?
Sigh. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Voltaire and Religion
"Voltaire and the Marquise analyzed the Bible, trying to find its validity in the world. Voltaire renounced religion; he believed in the separation of church and state and in religious freedom, ideas he formed after his stay in England. Voltaire even claimed that "One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker."

This seems like an over simplification of a complicated subject. To begin with, I can't find a reference to that quote about the bible. Second, Voltaire keeps mentioning (notably on Zadig, but also in Candide, more towards the end of his life's work) the idea of "La Providence" which is essentially very religious. He attacks specific religions, but never the idea of religion itself. Please refer to Zadig where this is evident (and posterior to his trip to England). There is a chapter on which people from very different cultures and religions are eating together on the table, and Zadig explains that the specific religion each of them has was not important as long as they all believed in the presence of a superior entity. If that's not religious I don't know what is. Please do reply to this post so we can discuss this further, otherwise I'll try go ahead and edit the article myself. Sdistefano (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the statement "Voltaire renounced religion" is false. As a deist he was obviously religious himself. --21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Saddhiyama (talk)

Quotation regarding Voltaire's friendship with "Frederick William."
Without access to the original quotation I can't tell if this is correct, a misquotation, or a correct quotation of an error. Surely the quote works better with Frederick II than with Frederick William? The latter did overlap chronologically with Voltaire, but in contrast to Frederick II's famous relationship with Voltaire I don't think I've ever heard that Frederick William and he ever corresponded. Anyway, I didn't want to change it without being certain. To be honest it seems like it's just there because someone thought the (modern) quotation was witty, which is a little less than notable. 142.167.183.152 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)